Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Would love to hear him explain how his staff met with the WB but he never met or knew the name.
Not even Democrats believe his lies.
Exactly.
All the senate needs is to call the staff as witness and question them about not revealing the WB to Schiff, under oath and risk of prison sentence.
No one wants to go to prison. They will throw Schiff under the bus.
I can even believe that Schiff might not have met him, but not knowing identity when his staff has met him is unbelievable or gross incompetence in running an office.
Well, it's dishonest to say that this is based on hearsay alone. Just because hearsay revealed what others then directly involved could speak to and corroborate doesn't mean this is based on hearsay ALONE. Graham's just misrepresenting the truth - it's all the 'Pubs can do at this point. All lying liars.
I can even believe that Schiff might not have met him, but not knowing identity when his staff has met him is unbelievable or gross incompetence in running an office.
I have yet to see or hear even one Liberal / Democrat person say they really believe Schift on this.
His credibility is completely shot with this last, latest and greatest lie.
All the senate needs is to call the staff as witness and question them about not revealing the WB to Schiff, under oath and risk of prison sentence.
No one wants to go to prison. They will throw Schiff under the bus.
I can even believe that Schiff might not have met him, but not knowing identity when his staff has met him is unbelievable or gross incompetence in running an office.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Businesses often have to put up, internally, what is called a Chinese wall to isolate those who know something from those who don't for the purpose of keeping a legally clean environment. I can easily see Schiff's staff doing such a thing in which they interview the WB and learn his/her name, then arrange for Schiff to talk to the person without revealing info that would violate the WB law. We used to do such a thing in my business usually to maintain NDA and intellectual property integrity.
Another dishonest title thread. Graham said Schiff "should" be called not he "will" be called.
Trumpists seem to have reading comprehension problems.
Here is the quote from the article. Lie and deny if you must, but here it is:
"So if there's a trial in the Senate, one of the witnesses will be Adam Schiff because if he in fact did meet with the whistleblower and coach the guy up, I think that's relevant to the impeachment inquiry itself," Graham continued.
Here is the quote from the article. Lie and deny if you must, but here it is:
"So if there's a trial in the Senate, one of the witnesses will be Adam Schiff because if he in fact did meet with the whistleblower and coach the guy up, I think that's relevant to the impeachment inquiry itself," Graham continued.
From YOUR link:
Quote:
As a matter of oversight, I'm not going to call a House member, but if you impeach the president of the United States, I want to find out if in fact Schiff and his staff met with the whistleblower," Graham said.
In other words, Graham doesn't even know if Schiff can be called. You whole thread is a big failure because Schiff will not be called as a witness.
"So if there's a trial in the Senate, one of the witnesses will be Adam Schiff because if he in fact did meet with the whistleblower and coach the guy up, I think that's relevant to the impeachment inquiry itself," Graham continued.
"So if there's a trial in the Senate, one of the witnesses will be Adam Schiff because if he in fact did meet with the whistleblower and coach the guy up, I think that's relevant to the impeachment inquiry itself," Graham continued.
I guess you didn't comprehend the first part of that sentence. Furthermore, Graham does not make the rules as to the propriety of calling another member of Congress to testify at a trial. Which is why the word "should" is used.
If you had bothered to read the entire article, you would have found this quote:
Quote:
Senate leadership has given no indication about who it may or may not allow to be called as witnesses as part of a likely Senate impeachment trial.
So like anyone who takes Graham's words at face value, you are left with egg on your face. Graham doesn't know who can or can not testify.
They can ask, but he can decline. As to Schiff, the whole thing will be a perjury trap, and he's REALLY fond of lying. So either he'll have to tell the truth and admit his many lies along the way, or he'll perjure himself and end up in legal trouble. Schiff is not a very intelligent person, so there's a lot of room for things to end poorly for him....and he can't decline to take the stand.
Exactly.
Schiff knows his lies will all be exposed or he will be brought up on perjury charges. So as committee chair, he will decline to call for a vote to move forward on articles of impeachment.
Seems like this whole thing is unraveling for the Dems.
Pelosi knew from the beginning there wasn't a case for impeachment, but she had to appease the foaming mouths of her party.
Another empty nothing-burger just like Russia, Russia, Russia.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
